In creating this Blog, I did a Google search for references
to the U.S. Constitution so that I could provide my readers a link to the
actual text. You will find those links to the right. So many of us think we know
what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide, but so few people have actually
read the language. In that search, I
found sites that purported to analyze the Constitution. And one site in particular analyzed the 2nd
Amendment in relation to current societal views.
The author of that site states:
"[R]ealizing that firearms are a part of
our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and
sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment — an amendment to replace the
2nd Amendment to the Constitution."
The proposed amendment reads in part as follows:
"The
right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and
personal defense shall not be infringed."
The interesting thing that is missing from this proposed
amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of the rights
granted to the People under the Constitution.
Our history includes that use of firearms and also includes instances
where unarmed Americans were stripped of their rights by the Government. Quite frankly, it is nice to have a firearm
for hunting or for sport but I do not "need" firearms for those purposes. The purpose for which I "need" firearms is the protection of the Freedoms granted to me by the Constituion. Wow, and that happens to be the purpose for which the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution in the first place. Go figure.
And please do not think all firearms are the same. Firearms that are good for hunting or sport are not always the best suited in battle. Also, limiting the thinking to a firearm used for self-defense introduces the possibility that a firearm can be prohibited because its true usefulness is offense and not defense. If you ask some politicians today, they see handguns that hold only seven rounds of ammunition as all that is needed for self-defense. But would we send our soldiers or police officers into battle with such firearms? We would have hell to pay.
And please do not think all firearms are the same. Firearms that are good for hunting or sport are not always the best suited in battle. Also, limiting the thinking to a firearm used for self-defense introduces the possibility that a firearm can be prohibited because its true usefulness is offense and not defense. If you ask some politicians today, they see handguns that hold only seven rounds of ammunition as all that is needed for self-defense. But would we send our soldiers or police officers into battle with such firearms? We would have hell to pay.
Finally, the author on that website goes on to say:
"This proposed amendment is a truer
representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms.”
If you poll the people and you ask them the following: under
current conditions, where we have the peaceful transition of power after a
national election and our current laws grant freedom to the press and a right
to a speedy and fair trial, what is your view on our freedom to bear arms? Most will probably agree with the author. The people polled were most likely born in
the United States and have come to take the Freedoms we have here for
granted. It is because of the 2nd
Amendment that the people currently have these Freedoms, not in spite of the 2nd Amendment. People have been lulled into a sense of
complacency. Probably even a sense of moral superiority in the belief that the their Freedoms can never be taken away. History has repeatedly proved these people wrong.
I suggest that if you poll the people, and press
them on the question of how far they would go to defend their right to vote if
eliminated by the Government or how far they would go to defend their families
from Government incarceration for prohibiting their right to practice
their religion, society (the People) would be willing to take up arms. Any person that believes that society is ready to give up free speech, voting rights, protection from having land taken by the government, or the right to a trial by a jury of their peers is not asking the right questions.
But, if restrictions are permitted to be put in place during
the time of complacency as suggested in the proposed amendment, what arms will the
People actually have available to them when the Government starts to trample on
the Bill of Rights; arms that only have usefulness for hunting, sport,
collecting or self-defense. The
technology and arms available to the government would have progressed far
beyond those of the People. Picture farmers
with pitch forks fighting trained soldiers with Gatling guns. Not a pretty picture is it?
Keep in mind that the Government needs to weaken the 2nd
Amendment before it can strip away the other rights provided by the U.S.
Constitution. That is why the 2nd
Amendment is the 1st Line of Defense. We
cannot let that line fall. As goes the 2nd
Amendment, so go the rest of our Freedoms.
